A friend of Lydia Johnson’s pays her respects at the corner of Flavel and 82nd in Southeast Portland.(Photos: J. Maus/BikePortland)

I spent the morning at Southeast 82nd and Flavel, where just 48 hours earlier 25-year-old Lydia Johnson was killed in a traffic collision while riding her bike.

On Saturday morning Johnson was riding eastbound on Flavel Street, perhaps on her way to the Springwater Corridor just a few blocks away. As she approached 82nd Avenue she was involved in a collision with what police describe as a “box truck.” From the police statement so far, both Johnson and the truck driver Joel Silva where going in the same direction. When Silva steered his truck right (south on 82nd) he came in contact with Johnson and her bike.

Judging from the markings I saw on 82nd today Silva’s truck stopped about 50 feet east of Flavel.

Here are a few more photos from the intersection…

On Flavel going eastbound toward 82nd.

Advertisement

Looking back at the bike lane from the other side of the street.

Another view of the bike lane Johnson was riding in.

This is the corner (on the left) where the collision occurred.

It appears to be a classic right-hook although we don’t yet know any other details such as whether the light was green or red or where either of the vehicles where prior to the collision. Those details likely won’t be made available until after the Multnomah County District Attorney’s office has completed their investigation of the case. As is standard practice, the police have given the case to the DA to determine whether or not Silva bears any criminal responsibility.

This section of Flavel is a 35 30 mph zone and according to City of Portland traffic data (from before neighbors rallied to get the speed limit reduced from 35 to 30) the average person goes about 38 mph and about 37 percent of all auto users go over the speed limit. Flavel as it crosses 82nd is classified as a neighborhood collector street and has moderate traffic.

While it’s nowhere near streets like Powell or Division in terms of traffic volume or sheer size, Flavel and 82nd is definitely still a very auto-centric place. Three of the four corners at the intersection have two very wide driveways. There are two mini-marts, a bar, and a Mexican food restaurant (which is really good by the way).

Flavel has three standard vehicle lanes west of 82nd — two for through travel and one left-turn only lane. It also has bike lanes striped on both sides. The eastbound bike lane — where Johnson was likely riding or stopped — is very narrow. It can’t be more than three or four feet wide.

Of the two dozen or so people I saw on bikes in the two hours I watched the intersection this morning, only two or three of them were in the roadway. Even though Flavel is listed as the bike street in this area, and the entrance to the Springwater Corridor bike path is just a few blocks east, almost everyone bikes on the sidewalk.

We know how dangerous the roads are in east Portland – especially on and around 82nd Avenue. That’s why the city has designated it as one of their 10 “High Crash Corridors,” and the Portland Bureau of Transportation launched its Vision Zero Task Force just a few miles north of where Johnson died. At a PBOT crosswalk enforcement action held this past April five blocks north of here at SE Cooper Street, the police handed out 36 citations and eight warnings in just a few hours.

Even with this knowledge and with all our wisdom and rhetoric about how to make streets safer, here we are. Another tragic loss of life. And another right-hook. And another truck making a turning movement. I’ve been reporting on this type of collision for a decade now. I’m not sure what else can be said.

This isn’t a technical problem, this is a cultural problem.

This isn’t just a tragedy for people who knew and loved Lydia Johnson. This is a tragedy for all of us.

I’ve been emailing with some of Johnson’s friends today. They’re connecting with her family to make memorial plans and they’ve just placed a ghost bike for her on the corner.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

133 Comments

Alexis PeterkaAugust 1, 2016 at 5:11 pm

Hey there. You linked to the Facebook page of the wrong Lydia Ann Johnson, believe it or not. After hearing the news today, I emailed *that* Lydia (she’s a friend of mine) who is 21, not 25. She confirmed that she’s okay, and sends her thoughts to the family of the victim.

Crazy co-incidence, I know, especially since the Oregonian coverage listed her age as 21, not 25, as the PPB report did.

Anyway, she’s not a huge Facebook user, but I assume she would prefer you not link to her Facebook page.

I agree it is a cultural problem, but it is also a technical problem. We know how to design intersections to reduce this sort of crash; we know how to add inexpensive safety devices to trucks to mitigate the damage when these sorts of collisions occur; and we know how to lower the speed limits on primarily residential streets to a more sane 25 MPH.

I disagree. As you note, the bike lane in that area is less than four feet. State of Oregon minimum is six feet (as little as four feet if the right of way is too narrow, but that’s clearly not the case where an extra turn lane has been placed). Therefore, this is at least in part a technical problem, and one that ODOT and PBOT have created again and again and again until the culture has been polluted by a sense that people on bikes should somehow be super-human and find a way to deal with such substandard work on the part of our government public works departments.

I also disagree that it’s not a technical problem. Look at what the white lines say: there’s space for bikes before the intersection but not IN the intersection. It tells drivers there’s a pedestrian crosswalk but otherwise the intersection is theirs. We need markings, paint or whatever, that tells drivers the bike lane continues across the intersection and you need take care when crossing that lane. It sounds logical, but most drivers are just following the lines.

I disagree with this assessment. The white lines for the car lanes don’t continue straight through the intersection, so by your logic, they don’t have a space delineated specifically for them. Therefore, they have no right to the center of the intersection– just the parts before and after it.

Common sense and prior usage applied to all intersections indicates that the lanes as marked on one side of the intersection continue through the intersection regardless of the lack of markings in the intersection itself.

Some of you may remember that a judge a few years ago ruled that because a bike lane wasn’t marked past a driveway, the bike lane didn’t exist at that driveway. Driveways are different than intersections, and don’t need paint laid down all the way through the intersection for road users to know where they need to be. I think the judge was incorrect, but I’m not a lawyer or policy-maker or anything other than a voting, bike-riding citizen.

“…Some of you may remember that a judge a few years ago ruled that because a bike lane wasn’t marked past a driveway, the bike lane didn’t exist at that driveway. …” kristen t

Zussman, was the judge, deciding on a collision that occurred on close in Hawthorne Blvd. On a purely literal, technical interpretation of the law, the judge was correct in his decision that without a painted line through the intersection to designate it, the bike lane did not exist in the intersection.

From an application of the law to real world traffic situations where motor vehicles and bikes are used on the road together, the judge’s decision was incorrect. His decision effectively left people biking, ‘up the creek without a paddle’: Surprise!! Now you have it, now you don’t.

Nevertheless, painted lines or not, intersections and the approach to them, are very tough for people biking. Everyone riding a bike, and as someone that rides, speaking for myself as well, must be very careful in approaching intersections, noting among many other things to watch for, position relative to motor vehicles fore, aft and abreast…making defensive movement as needed.

“…The eastbound bike lane — where Johnson was likely riding or stopped — is very narrow. It can’t be more than three or four feet wide. …” bikeportland

It’s not too much of a hassle, or danger, to carry a tape measure, and measure bike lane’s whose width is in question.

Tougher to measure the width of the main lanes, but your mention of the bike lane on this street being narrow, has me wondering how wide the road’s main lanes are, and whether they could feasibly be narrowed to allow wider bike lanes.

Realistically, how much greater level of safety to someone riding a bike, can a 6′ bike lane provide, compared to a 4′ bike lane? Not much, I don’t think, but the extra 2′ of width, or greater in some instances, can make the bike lane easier to ride in, depending on how much debris has been allowed to accumulate there…and does offer a bit more margin for the alert rider to dodge away from motor vehicles being operated too close to them, or heading towards them.

Personally, even with 6′ bike lanes, I tend to ride the line, in part to help convey territory to main lane road users. If the bike lane is very clean, and I mean ‘very’…I’ll ride, say a foot inside the line. I do so also, to maintain the maximum distance allowed to me by the bike lane width, to hopefully avoid an improperly operated or out of control motor vehicle.

Still…most bike lanes are just established by a painted line on the pavement. Nothing they can offer in the way of safety to people riding bikes, can keep an improperly operated or out of control motor vehicle from running into someone riding a bike in such a bike lane.

I’ve emailed this message to safety@odot.state.or.us with the subject line: Transportation Safety Action Plan to request that there safety plan is truly oriented to prioritize human lives. Please write them even better suggestions.

Hello ODOT,

I ask you to immediately reduce the speed limits on 82nd and on Flavel to 25mph, and to remove one care lane from 82nd in the surrounding blocks until a permanent safe reengineering can be made. I ask you to make this standard procedure after all accidents as part of your Transportation Safety Action Plan.

Do not let more people die. High speeds and car lanes should never be a bigger priority than human lives.

Can’t think of a single one (drive thru) anywhere near Flavel. I’m almost positive that Mcdonalds just south of Foster is the nearest drive-thru, that or the Taco Bell on Johnson Creek (but that’s Clackamas). There is a coffee shack in the Air Gas parking lot – though that really doesn’t count.

Unfortunately, other than the Springwater, Flavel is some of the best “infrastructure” in that part of SE. For those that say that there is no single track in Portland and those that don’t believe me, should try riding the sidewalks through this part 82nd…. You’ll realize that Flavel is about as good as it gets in the immediate area and you’ll realize that there is in fact, short runs of single track too in SE. The pedestrian and bicycle facilities south of Woodstock are for the lack of a better term – abysmal.

it is really difficult to prevent right hook collisions through street infrastructure. Vehicle have to be able to make turns (self-evident), right turns unavoidably cross over right-side bike lanes (and bike lanes are on the right because they are overall safer there than on the left of vehicle traffic), and separate bike/car signal phases are impractical at most intersections (they slow both bikes and cars, cost more, and of course most intersections don’t have traffic signals).

I also don’t think speed limits have much to do with right hook collisions. The vehicle is usually traveling very slowly – a large truck will be going 5-10 mph when turning at an intersection like this.

The primary problem here is driver training and driver negligence. Too many drivers don’t check mirrors carefully before making right turns. They don’t think about the bike that they just passed, their attention is focused ahead and to the side, they are careless or ill-trained or both. And the drivers of “box trucks” (local delivery trucks) are often working for small companies who don’t have driver training programs. Those trucks are also often poorly equipped, as far as mirrors go.

I don’t know what jurisdiction the city has over driver licensing and vehicle equipment. That might be pre-empted by state law. If possible, I’d like to see Portland’s commercial drivers required to take annual training in safely driving around bikes and pedestrians, Portland’s commercial trucks required to have the best mirrors and even proximity warning systems if available, as well as skirts to reduce the chance of cyclists being pulled under the wheels. I’d also like to see companies suffer real consequences from this sort of accident, like fines and loss of business license. Frankly, some of the box trucks (local delivery trucks) around town are being driven by people who really aren’t trained professional drivers.

Until Portland drivers are all well trained, the right hook is the most dangerous accident that most of us will face when riding in the city. So, some advice. If you don’t enter intersections with a truck or car to your left or left-front, you won’t get right hooked. This often means you have to hit the brakes and slow down to let the adjacent truck or car “get ahead”. This costs precious bike speed, and it is really frustrating because usually the truck or car will continue straight through the intersection, so you lost that speed for nothing – but if you want to be as safe as possible, that’s how you do it. You shouldn’t have to, but that’s reality.

Betsy Reese August 2, 2016 at 12:12 am So very sorry for Lydia’s family and friends. Their grief is unimaginable. Our own two kids are 25 and 27. Unimaginable grief. While we will never know whose family and friends we may have helped spare this grief, let’s let our work to prevent these kinds of deaths be motivated by that thought.

Fifteen years of watching countless right hooks out my doorstep at N. Broadway/Flint/Wheeler has given me alot to think about. I welcome feedback on my conclusions.

Right hooks:

1. Turn signals do not bestow or alter right-of-way. Straight-bound traffic has right-of-way.

2. Oregon law positioning straight-bound traffic to the right of the lane from which a right-hand turn must be made is a set up. Let’s work to change this law. Allowing motor vehicles to safely and when there is an opening merge into the bike lane and move close to the curb for right turns eliminates a straight-bound lane to their right. Drivers will make more of an effort to be certain they can safely merge right than they do now to be certain they will not right-hook a cyclist.

3. As a bicyclist, do not die maintaining your right-of-way. Be prepared to cede it and save your life, even if it means an injury-causing dive while the perpetrator drives off untouched. Live to to tell the tale, put your story and energy toward change.

5. As a cyclist, do not linger in vehicle blind spots. Move through them quickly. Keep moving at a pace faster or slower than the motor vehicle to your left so that you “reappear” quickly in their mirrors. This is especially important at intersections and driveways.

6. As a driver, do not rely on your mirrors to make a right turn. Sit up tall from your seat, turn your head and upper torso, and look back. Do not just a glance out the side window, but look all the way around and out your side and then rear window. Look for bicyclists passing you on the right, whether there is a bicycle lane or not. This is standard drivers ed in Europe.

7. If you have become stiff and inflexible to the point that you cannot turn your head and twist your torso in this fashion, take up yoga, practice twisting and stretching your neck and torso daily, and/or consider a shorter vehicle or one in which you are able to see fully and quickly into the space to your right and behind you. If age or infirmity still prevents you from being able to turn and twist adequately, embrace your retirement from piloting your personal motor vehicle.

8. A bicyclist just entering your roadway to your right that you have not seen in passing is no excuse. Bicyclists traveling faster than expected is also no excuse. ALWAYS look all the way back and out your rear window when turning right. If you have to stop dead to do this, then stop dead. “They came out of nowhere!” never really happens. “Sorry Mate, I Didn’t See You” SMIDSY is a non-apology and a non-excuse. START SEEING BICYCLES.

9. Collisions causing injury but not death, and near-misses without physical contact, need to be seen as just as much a call to action as a fatality. Why require a human sacrifice to recognize that we finally need to take action? Why wait for that next death? Why allow public entities to virtually require that statistic to trigger action?

An excellent summation. Only problem in this case, it was a box truck involved, meaning there’s no view to turn and look out of, and the driver must rely on mirrors. I will go out of my way to stay away from box trucks or panel vans, vehicles with restricted rear and side vision.

All good advice, though particularly with regards to people traveling the streets and roads by bike, from whence are they to acquire the knowledge and skill required with the present road infrastructure, to ride safely in the street? This isn’t knowledge people inherit, genetically. It’s learned knowledge, accompanied by a certain amount of trial and error experience.

From the descriptions and pics of the 82nd and Flavel intersection and its approaches, this infrastructure isn’t unique in function and character. In fact, the provision for travel it provides road users with, according to their use of the road by motor vehicle, or bike, is very common.

In simple terms, for anyone riding a bike on any such road, it’s imperative that they well know and use procedures for minimizing the potential for collisions of all types. On the road, traveling by bike, I believe there’s plenty of people that haven’t even had so much as study and test for an Oregon driver’s license, that would have given them at least preparation for riding on the road. Including people in their 20’s and 30’s.

There is a lot of motor vehicle traffic on the roads, and despite what some people may think, there’s likely a strong chance the number of motor vehicles in use on the road will not decrease. People biking, will need to strengthen their knowledge and skill in biking with such traffic, if they hope to maximize their ability to avoid collisions and survive.

All good points Betsy. As to 4, please note that Oregon law allows a bicycle to overtake a vehicle on the right when it “may safely make the passage under the existing conditions.” Many cyclists think that that the exception gives them a de facto bike lane whenever they want to travel faster than auto traffic. However, there are many instances when such a passing just simply is not safe under the existing conditions. Those “existing conditions” may include inadequate biking infrustructure, but as you said, let’s be safe and live to fight another day.

Doesn’t our hands free cell-phone state law have a big loop hole for any commercial operator that allows anyone who needs to drive for their employment to talk and text on a phone and not use a hands-free device?

ORS 811.507 Exceptions: A person operating a motor vehicle in the scope of the person’s employment if operation of the motor vehicle is necessary for the person’s job;

Dan A – Thank you for taking the time and trouble to contact North Coast Electric about their driver. I too am a proponent of contacting companies of marked vehicles to report dangerous driver behavior. Just in the last month I had excellent responses from Pepsico and from the Portland Fire Bureau. Even though you didn’t get a response back, I wanted you to know that your call did make a difference, and what a conscientious company NCE is.

North Coast Electric is a business neighbor of ours and over the last 18 years I have gotten to know them as being very concerned about their trucks operating safely around bicycles. They voluntarily rerouted their trucks to avoid N. Wheeler at Broadway in both directions long before the city closed that street northbound to motor vehicles because of the high number of right hooks. Their headquarters are located in Lower Albina and this was one of their main ingress/egress locations, yet they gave it up on their own. See bp mentioning them for that here:

Furthermore, the written support of Lower Albina freight-movement-dependent companies like North Coast Electric was instrumental in convincing PBOT and ODOT to partner on the significant safety improvements now being made to that location.

I forwarded your comment to NCE and they responded immediately letting me know that they did receive and log the complaint, along with another on the same truck the same day, also regarding failure to signal. (They don’t return calls unless the caller requests it.) They found they had a malfunctioning turn signal, and that the driver was not texting, but using his GPS mapping service. This was not told to me as an excuse, just an explanation. The individual driver has been talked to about how to avoid these distractions in the future. They plan to use your report at their next driver training meeting with all drivers and will be discussing it at length. Additionally, NCE is working directly with both Ford and Isuzu to get certain side sensor features developed and made standard on new trucks to help prevent right hook crashes. North Coast Electric cares, and they act on it.

Why is this sort of thing always 100% the driver’s fault? People are not trained in driver’s Ed to look behind and to their right when making a right turn, so why would anyone expect this to happen? Why aren’t people on bikes responsible for watching out for their own safety instead of obliviously blowing through red lights and stop signs (I see this every single day). If you see a large box truck in front of you that looks like it might be turning, maybe you should slow down and see what it’s going to do instead of expecting everyone else to take responsibility for your safety.

This is an equity issue. I don’t need yet another buffered bike lane for where the traffic is slowed by congestion and the design of the roads. But people who live/work between Portland and Gresham desperately need better crossings of this highway with stoplights.

As for reporting the bike lane is 3 feet or 4 feet wide…without measuring it (it reads as such)…I would caution that it is critical to only report what the actual width is*…as if it were a 3.0 foot bike lane then the City (and or the striping contractor) would have some explaining to do (sub standard design). I would recommend – if one cannot field measure it at several locations – then only write that it is “very narrow” vs. “It can’t be more than three or four feet wide.”

Note:* This is a important discussion based on inches…PBoT can give BP direction as to how they measure the lane width (outside curb face to inside of bike lane line, etc.)…just so everyone is “talking” apples to apples…as one can measure the same bike lane as 3.75 ft when measured to the the inner lane line edge and 4.0 ft if measured to the middle of the lane line…

Following up on the width of the lane…I took a look at Google Streetview to get a better idea what the design of this intersection was [as I do not ride it] and I was surprised to see that there was no bike lane in the lane where the collision occurred. There used to be a missing segment on that side of the road.

The image is dated June 2016…so the bike lane may be mere weeks old and so the striping plans and dimensions may add more information to the post incident report…as to how wide it is and what was planned in the plan set. [I had hoped to find a publicly accessible plan set …but I could not find any agenda or meeting notes on-line for the BAC for 2016.]

I looked around at the TV and press reporting this crash and fatality, and so far…I would say: (A grade) The dialogue on Vision Zero seems to be working very well with how the local press [in print] has chosen words for the article titles and the article body…as I did not see the term ‘accident’ used nor some of the past troubling assumptions used to prejudge dead cyclists (neither based on an interview of the cyclist or un-biased witnesses) involved in traffic crashes. Instead the reporters used: collision, struck, killed, fatal crash, etc.

Additional credit goes to the PPB in the care in writing the press release and for mentioning Vision Zero too…so A grade for all.

I was walking my bike across Powell at 80th this morning and got stranded on the median because not one of dozens of westbound cars would stop, as the law requires each of them to do. Eyes were bore-sighted ahead at 35-plus miles-per-hour.

I never have had a problem like that before; being extra cautious and walking one’s bike in dicey situations also can be fraught with danger. Returning back across Powell I used the crosswalk at 82nd; it also was dangerous because of left and right turners violating the signals.

I know people are going to screech about this but: in my work, i get to ride a bike, yay. BUT I am required to wear a safety vest. Now, that doesn’t give me the superpower of invulnerability, but I will tell you that it makes a dramatic difference in crosswalk behavior from drivers. Still way too many dangerous drivers, but really about 50 % better compliance with seeing a rider and yielding to the rider. Still abysmal, but I am sure I have likely avoided injury or death during my work hours on a bike. I have been insulted on here for saying this, but I remain alive to take those insults.

I wear a safety vest, high-vis socks, and have a very bright front blinker and two very bright red rear blinkers. I’m not invisible by any means.

I still have trouble getting drivers to stop for me, even after pushing the button for the HAWK signal that I can see is furiously flashing above the roadway and crosswalk.

I also push my bike out into the lane to get people to stop, especially after standing there waiting for a bit.

I don’t think high-vis- reflective, super lights, etc are the answer to any of the issues posed here (drivers stopping for crosswalks, drivers not running over people on bikes, etc). The answer is drivers who ACTUALLY PAY ATTENTION– a very small minority of drivers out there, sadly.

As for the operation of the truck during this right hook scenario: I hope that the county/ city team investigating this fatality take great care to check if the truck operator signalled their turn well in advance AND to check the functionality, cleanliness and positioning of the truck’s mirror(s) at the time of the collision. [And if there were any interior items blocking the driver’s line of sight to the right side mirror(s).]

All too often in the past the ability of a commercial truck operator to see a cyclist in their mirror when turning (before a right hook) and, or the use of their turn signal has either been ‘ignored’ as a contributing factor or un-reported in the police report issued to the public.

[Jonathan – did you ever get a full response from the PPB on the case we discussed last year?]

I would also love to know how much weight investigators place on signaling, although some vehicles’ signals can’t be seen from beside them. That 7-Eleven may have telling surveillance video to be reviewed.

mirrors = maintenance headache, but also, the size depicted would not do much at speed. They look like a little larger than a signal head, 8-12 inches in diameter. Might see a bike light at night, not sure much else.

Yes the speed of a passing vehicle does effect the size of the mirror…it works best to minimize right hooks for vehicles that are stopped or making lower speed turns.

All tech and hardware are a “maintenance headache”…businesses and individuals maintain those things they value and wish to always be dependable and don’t maintain the others…when I hear [individuals and] agencies use this term then I know its an excuse and they have other priorities.

Seems like a small price to pay so you don’t kill anyone. Personally, I maintain and clean all mirrors on my car. I would expect that a professional driver would do the same on a large, dangerous commercial vehicle.

When I drove a small pumper truck for the USFS, we had to go over an inspection checklist every morning before we headed out, checking all lights, mirrors, etc.. We also had some classroom instruction on driving, had to be certified by our boss before we could drive, and were required to drive safely and under the speed limit.

Does “no sign of impairment” mean they also checked for cell phone use by the driver? It would be nice if reporters would at least ask the phone use question. Distracted driving was found to be a factor in more than half of collisions, even before the recent surge in taking selfies while driving and Pokémon Go. How can you say the driver was not impaired if you don’t know if they were on their phone or not.

Yes we have a cultural problem, but we need to fix our culture to be one that fixes problems. It’s terrible and sad that someone died because mistakes were made. People getting killed in the street should not be a part of daily life and it should make everyone think about what you’re able and willing to do to make death by automobile far less likely. There are easy and cheap solutions to problems with auto traffic — if drivers don’t want to pay the money to do it right, just shut it down.

I find it odd that no one mentions the bad design of putting bikes to the right of right-turning traffic:http://kentsbike.blogspot.com/2007/10/avoid-suicide-slot.html Bike lanes that put me to the right of right turning traffic make me very nervous. But I guess it’s now somehow politically incorrect to talk about the problem that way?

Without mixing zones, you essentially have mixing zones combined with “turning zones”… By separating them, you let people focus on one thing at a time, and avoid problems with cyclists approaching in a driver’s blind spot at a red light.

There is no way to avoid mixing zones – it’s only a question of where and when.

Mixing and swapping lanes create a very long danger zone with faster-moving cars and traffic on both sides rather than just one point of conflict. Also note: turning right on a bike from the right turn lane puts you back in the same situation and without priority space.

As in the protected intersection, if we put an obstacle between the auto traffic and the bike lane at the point of conflict, wouldn’t that make turning vehicles more predictable? It’s hard to predict where a truck’s wheel might cross a stripe of paint, but you can be fairly sure about a curb or a post.

Since bikes wouldn’t be to the right of the right-turners (they’d either be in a through lane or, I suppose, in line to turn right), you would avoid the possibility of “turning right on a bike” (if I understood you correctly).

That said, I agree that there are superior designs available (such as the one you linked to), but those can rarely be implemented without cost. I’d love to see them deployed here in Portland!

I totally agree. I was thinking more that if budget only allowed striping of bike lanes, better to do a mixing lane than not. I would totally agree that it would be worth spending the money to do our intersections right. However, I do not control the budget or the revenue raising mechanisms.

So you are thinking that all bike lanes at all intersections should be protected or just the ones with traffic lights? Can you explain what you mean by protection? If there is not room to do that do you think the intersection should be modified to make room? Is there any limit to the amount of money that should be spent?

I don’t believe this has hardly anything to do with speed or mirrors. To hook a cyclist, a vehicle has to slow enough to turn and the cyclist has to be right next to them — i.e. they either were right next to the cyclist or just passed them. If they didn’t see them during those times, mirrors will not help unless everyone was stopped.

Driver training does help, and one of the first things I noticed when I moved to Portland is that awareness of the hook is common among drivers. This is a very good thing, but it’s also not typical for riding in the US.

We need to press to raise drivers’ awareness of the right hook but we also need to make people in the cycling community more aware of how to avoid them. That a driver can be held liable for right hooking a cyclist does is no consolation if the cyclist is dead or seriously injured.

We need to be more serious about getting cyclists to understand how important it is to ride defensively when mixing with large steel objects moving at speed.

The difference between a good driver and a bad one is that a good driver is prepared when people do the wrong thing and/or something happens that shouldn’t while a bad one blames circumstances. The same is true of cyclists.

There are reasons that mirrors are required by law on cars, and they’re even more important on bikes. A helmet or glasses mounted mirror is an excellent defense against the right hook because you can tell from a driver’s movement if they’re about to turn even if they don’t signal.

Waiting next to a large vehicle by a corner or passing any vehicle from behind on the right is extremely dangerous unless you *know* it won’t turn — assuming all drivers will do the right thing and not make a mistake is a recipe for disaster.

“— i.e. they either were right next to the cyclist or just passed them. If they didn’t see them during those times, mirrors will not help unless everyone was stopped.”

I’m going to assume for the sake of discussion that the truck driver was waiting at the light, and the bicyclist caught up to the truck and was next to/passing it. When I’m in a car in that situation, I’m watching my mirror closely before I even begin moving forward so that I know the status of the bicycle lane before I have to cross it.

So I’d say mirrors (or more to the point, looking at those mirrors at the right time) will very much help. If you simply check your mirror at the moment you’re about to turn a truck, then yes, you’re likely to miss another road user in your blind spot at that moment.

Reading your post again, I guess we’re actually in agreement. It seems to me the culture of not adequately monitoring your surroundings may have been a factor here. You seemed to imply that checking mirrors wouldn’t have helped, but I may have read too much from that sentence.

Drivers should check and many do. But there is something fundamentally messed up with any approach that assumes that all drivers will take measures to protect the safety of cyclists that *might* be there when the cyclists are unwilling to take common sense measures to mitigate an obvious threat right in front of (or in this case next to) them.

it is a statistical fact that not all drivers are sober, attentive, familiar with Portland etiquette/rules, and won’t make mistakes. While there are things drivers should do, cyclists need to assume drivers will mess up. Staying safe is all about riding like everyone is trying to kill you but not taking it personally.

As a community, we should not be encouraging any sort of behavior that sets up cyclists for serious injury or worse. Some cycling practices that are common in Portland are just suicidal elsewhere. And even if people plan to spend their whole lives here, these practices are unsafe here too.

No one has a greater interest in your safety than you do, so even if driver education is important, cyclist education is even more important.

All trucks (and maybe all vehicles) should have to do a full stop before turning right even on greens. Then they could take plenty of time to check mirrors or rotate their head and LOOK for people on bikes, walking, skateboarding, whatever. Good luck getting that law passed, or enforced.

The other way this can happen is if traffic is stopped at a red light, which turns green as a cyclist is approaching from behind, on the right, maintaining speed to coast into the intersection. The driver didn’t pass any cyclists, and doesn’t think to look in their blind spot to see if anyone is coming up between them and the curb because other vehicles never approach from that direction.

Drivers should check and many do. But there is something fundamentally messed up with any approach that assumes that all drivers will take measures to protect the safety of cyclists that *might* be there when the cyclists are unwilling to take common sense measures to mitigate an obvious threat right in front of (or in this case next to) them.

it is a statistical fact that not all drivers are sober, attentive, familiar with Portland etiquette/rules, and won’t make mistakes. While there are things drivers should do, cyclists need to assume drivers will mess up. Staying safe is all about riding like everyone is trying to kill you but not taking it personally.

As a community, we should not be encouraging any sort of behavior that sets up cyclists for serious injury or worse. Some cycling practices that are common in Portland are just suicidal elsewhere. And even if people plan to spend their whole lives here, these practices are unsafe here too.

No one has a greater interest in your safety than you do, so even if driver education is important, cyclist education is even more important.

“there is something fundamentally messed up with any approach that assumes that all drivers will take measures to protect the safety of cyclists”

actually, what’s fundamentally messed up is that it’s common knowledge (and behavior) that drivers will be breaking the law with fatal results…

that I should have to live my life in fear is fundamentally messed up…

I would be moving at a snails pace if I perceived every situation as a possible threat on my life… do we all need to go to the extreme measure of sitting at a green light until cross-traffic is stopped at their light or there’s nobody in sight for at least a mile? that seems like what you’re suggesting…

no, this is a civilized society and as such I expect that somebody given the privilege of being allowed to operate a deadly motor vehicle for a limited time after a thorough testing process will adhere to those protocols not just to protect their continued privilege but to take care not to kill those around them while partaking is such a privileged act…

Jonathan, there is an issue with the ‘Post your comment’ button, where it doesn’t refresh the page like it used to. This is causing a lot of double posts, with a correctly nested post followed by an extra post at the bottom of the page.

Hi Dan, we’re aware of that issue. It’s caused because of the general slowdown and server issues we’ve been having for the past few days. We are actively working to address it. In the meantime, please bear with us. Sorry for the hassle.

it hasn’t refreshed the page in a long time… about a year? maybe more… since they did some big updates on the comment system… you have to scroll up to see your reply now…

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the button, but there’s a lot of traffic to the site right now causing a lot of time-out issues where sometimes it has posted your comment and sometimes it hasn’t…

the only way to be sure is to refresh the page, see if the comment is there, and if not then click Reply again… don’t just click Reply again if you get a timeout error as you may be posting twice if you do…

I live in Aloha and try my best to avoid TV Highway for this very reason – Except people go 50mph and there’s a ton of places for them to right hook you at. Sad that this happened. I always try and stay to the back of trucks that can’t see me and try and make eye contact with drivers at stop lights. I’m not sure what happened or how he didn’t see her, I’m wondering if maybe she was stopped next to him and he just didn’t look to his right or she was out of his line of sight/mirrors. Having driven a big truck, and being a cyclist, I know to keep a sharp eye out. But not every driver does. I think there should be more education for both drivers and cyclists.

unfortunately trusting the safety of cyclists to the skill, attention to detail and emotional stability of the drivers I see on the streets of Portland and its Suburbs these days is far from a fool-proof plan. This is not just a matter of motorists not paying attention to cyclist, there are a high percentage of drivers who do not belong behind the wheel. Running red lights, going against traffic on one way streets, random lane changes, honking and raging at anything that slows them down. It is very true that this is a cultural problem because unfortunately we as a culture become sane enough to get at least 25% of the drivers ( the worst 25%) off the road by some method or other no amount of infrastructure will solve this problem. We must make driving a 2 ton death machine a privlege for those that earn it and not some kind of right for everyone.

Drivers will do anything they want up to the point they think they can get away with. The idea is to make them think they won’t be able to get away with it, while installing measures that prevent the behaviors we don’t want drivers to exhibit.

Since it is a pretty well known fact that many (if not most) of the cyclists in Portland are also drivers, maybe we could just say that humans will do anything they want up to the point they think they can get away with.

It is a lot easier to just blame it on drivers though – as though the immediate mode of transportation rewires the morality of the individual.

Way to turn that conversation around and blame cyclists. The fundamental difference that I can’t believe people still don’t understand, is that a car is far heavier and more dangerous to those around it, whereas that same behavior from a cyclist will in only extremely rare cases result in injuring or killing another road user.

I in fact think that this is true. Driving cars in traffic in many cases seems to make people agressive, impatient, selfish and careless. It is a technology that seperates people from each other by technology and reinforces the concept of everyman for himself. In the world of the car cooperation is replaced with competition and beating the other guy. This subtly effects the person immersed in the car driving experience. Just like the famous Stanford Experiment showed normal humans could turn in to sadistic control freaks when put in the right circumstances the automobile can turn a sane rational personal in to a destructive zombie. Drive less (or not at all) and get your sanity back.

“Do you suppose he acts like that when walking down the street? “I’m gonna stomp this muddy puddle and splash that person over there.””

Sure – there are the tough guys who walk down the middle of the sidewalk or hall that are trying to make you step out of their way or take a stiff shoulder. There are others that will stand in the middle of a path or a ski run to make you go around them. There are men and women who walk down the middle of a sidewalk texting or surfing on their phones, oblivious to their surroundings. They walk into other people, in front of trains, into fountains, etc.

Inconsiderate and rude behavior is not limited to the mode of transportation one chooses to use that day. There is no argument that careless driving can cause more damage than careless walking. I am just tired of the “Us vs Them” mentality when in reality, it is a “Us vs Us” situation.

I think this is exactly right. I don’t see inattentiveness and negligence as a natural human condition that we must just accept from people in charge of multi-ton steel vehicles capable of travelling at 100+ mph. Some people are inattentive and negligent because they don’t try not to be, and these people should not be operating motor vehicles until they are able to prove they have the skill and temperament for the job.

But basically, we don’t care enough as a society to be that selective. Pass a 30-question multiple-choice arcane knowledge test and demonstrate a moderate level of competence on one single driving test in your entire life, and you’re good to go. If you later demonstrate an inability to be inattentive or negligent, you may receive a token fine, or maybe not. It’s extremely unlikely that you will ever lose your ‘right to drive’.

I wish I shared your view. Unfortunately, I do see inattentiveness and negligence as becoming a natural human condition. We have laws and lawsuits in abundance protecting and enabling this behavior/condition.

In Holland, there is a standard policy of separate bike signals at all intersections controlled by stoplights. They always set the bike signals so that the bikes cross the street first, then the auto traffic is allowed to cross. A setup like that could have saved her life. Maybe a no right turn policy on a busy intersection like that would help.

When I am near a car and an intersection I focus on the cars front wheel. If the car is stopped or it is turning, the front wheel will tell me the driver’s intention immediately.

When I pass a car or a car passes me I feel there is a second or two where if something happens I will have no time to react. I am keenly aware of that spot and will speed up or slow down in order to get out of that spot as quickly as possible.

I agree that infrastructure does little in these situations. Even on a MUP, you will likely need to share the road with cars at an intersection. I feel the best way to reduce collisions with cars is to ride more and become a better bike rider. If you are waiting for all drivers to become better drivers you wait a looooong time.

Since bikes wouldn’t be to the right of the right-turners (they’d either be in a through lane or, I suppose, in line to turn right), you would avoid the possibility of “turning right on a bike” (if I understood you correctly).

That said, I agree that there are superior designs available (such as the one you linked to), but those can rarely be implemented without cost. I’d love to see them deployed here in Portland!

Last Saturday a woman died while trying to cross SE 82nd at Flavel. Too many people have been killed or injured on this “Avenue of Death.” This Saturday, we will ride and walk in the street to protest ODOT and the City of Portland’s failure to make SE 82nd (and other high crash corridors) safe for people.

The ride will begin at Woodstock City Park at 3pm and will stop at SE 82nd and Flavel at 4:00 pm so that people on foot can protest with us.

“Judging from the markings I saw on 82nd today Silva’s truck stopped about 50 feet east of Flavel.” Should this read “south” of Flavel? I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, if OR followed the CA requirement instructing right-turning drivers to “occupy”, or straddle the bike lane prior to turning, right hook collisions would be eliminated.

Is it good practice for people driving, to “…proceed as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway: …”, where there is a bike lane located between the main lane of the road, and the curb or edge of the roadway? I’d say ‘no’, not good practice, and the people that wrote and passed Oregon law regarding use of the bike lane, agree.

One of the things Oregon law regarding use of the bike lane does, is reduce the potential for right hooks. With some exceptions, people operating motor vehicles in Oregon, are for the most part, required to stay out of bike lanes, making the bike lane a safer refuge from the right hook, than does laws such as California’s regarding bike lanes in that state.

Oregon’s law regarding use of bike lanes, isn’t able to make use of the bike lane so safe for people riding bikes, that they can be off their guard for motor vehicle traffic ahead or behind them in the main lanes of the road. All intersections are potentially hazardous traffic situations, particularly for people riding bikes.

For people operating motor vehicles, and making right turns where there is a bike lane to their right, consistent with Oregon law related to bike lanes, the operator is required to not use the bike lane for a transition up to and into the right turn, in advance of the right turn; the law does allow for crossing the bike lane at the intersection.

A person commits the offense of making an improperly executed right turn if the person is operating a vehicle, is intending to turn the vehicle to the right and does not proceed as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway: (a) In making the approach for a right turn; and (b) In making the right turn.

The law explicitly states that you MUST use the bike lane to prepare for your turn, in advance of making the turn itself.

I see those statements, but no explanation of why they differ from the plain meaning of the law. It may very well be that I am wrong, but the law seems clear. I was disappointed that the lawyer blogs did not explain this.

The right turn law specifically references the curb, the location of which does not depend on your interpretation of “roadway”. (Do you have a definition of roadway that clearly excludes the bike lane?)

Is this the same document that calls bikes “wobbly” and cautions drivers against creating air vortices that might destabilize a hapless cyclist? I couldn’t find anything there that explained why the right turn law doesn’t mean what it says.

Will the DA’s office use the 7-Eleven security camera to aid in their investigation? It looks like it’s pointing right at it. I’d like to know for sure if this is a right hook or hit-from-behind crash.